Efficiency Tier List?

[Florete]

In their defense, many of them don't care.

That's correct. I probably should've added "or don't care" to that sentence.

In other news, I found a great quote from that topic for my sig.

[Tangerine]

Well, in his defense he did point out "as fast as possible", so that at least should imply that we aren't caring about hitting 610 turns but blowing that number out of the ballpark. But I get it that the other posts probably weren't there while you were typing, and there posts were more explicit than his. Happens to me all the time (the part about other posts showing up while I type). I try to hit preview post and look at what shows up while I was typing, but I don't always remember.

"As fast as possible" to me means "as fast as the ranks will allow you to go".

I think we are very anti-ranks. That probably has something to do with it. Having to not spend money we have just to make I.S. happy makes people go crazy.

Well, that's pretty hypocritical of the people acting hostile then.

If you want to contribute to the non-rank lists, just keep in mind that the idea is to stomp the game. That's the way I look at it, anyway. Efficient stomping. Meaning no boss abuse, of course, because while that could lead to stomping, it isn't really efficient. The most stomp in the least turns. It's why Titania in fe9 is better than most of the others. Well, part of why.

Sounds like join time means even more on this list than the ranking list.

Yeah, most of our comments about Gamefaqs are like our comments about Smash. They just come up from time to time because we like taking shots at easy targets. I think it is very human.

And yeah, I'd say a large portion of the active posters on the RD board of gamefaqs wouldn't know what makes a character great if it... made itself really obvious.

In their defense, many of them don't care. But there are those that say a character is "good" when it clearly isn't, or that you can do [insert nutso idea here] and a character is then good.

Well, I'm not from the RD board. RD brought in a bunch of casual FE fans who really shouldn't be arguing tiers in the first place. The FE7 tier community is of much higher quality. I'd like to think Jaffar and I proved that ourselves. Now if only Reikken were here to complete our GFaqs trio :(.

Well, like I said, calling something we love a joke is probably the quickest way to rile us.

The efficiency tier list is basically a narrowed down S-rank tier list anyway, so it's tough not to see where it's coming from. I just don't particularly see the reason you'd want to debate much about it. It's fairly obvious who the best characters are when you don't take ranks into account because nobody is restricted. The S-rank tier list wants to be as efficient as possible as well while under restrictions the ranks offer.

Anyway, for tier lists without ranks, the idea is:

Some ranks impose restrictions that prevent the efficient stomping of a game. Why force us to give exp to a bunch of lame characters when the ones we have raised can cut through a chapter like it's butter? Once you accept our premise, the rest logically follows, and the best characters become those that exemplify excellence. If a unit is so amazing that it will crush the enemies around it and allow us to finish in 8 turns instead of 11, that's great. If tactics rank suggests 14 turns is okay, that doesn't matter. 8 is better than 14. The characters that allow 14 are not equal to those that allow 8. So, if those 14 can do something that helps those other ranks, we don't care. They aren't helping us destroy the game.

But at some point that line is crossed by everybody. Enemies in FE6/7 are pretty trash to the point where most characters outside of the worst one round everything. This pretty much means join time and how long you do it wins. Seems extremely simple; I'm not sure how you would want to keep going when those are your only rules.

[Florete]

"As fast as possible" to me means "as fast as the ranks will allow you to go".

That doesn't make sense. Why should ranks restrict how fast we can go?

I just don't particularly see the reason you'd want to debate much about it.

Same reason I play the games; I find it fun.

It's fairly obvious who the best characters are when you don't take ranks into account because nobody is restricted. The S-rank tier list wants to be as efficient as possible as well while under restrictions the ranks offer.

That's not true at all. If it were, this topic would be much smaller.

But at some point that line is crossed by everybody. Enemies in FE6/7 are pretty trash to the point where most characters outside of the worst one round everything. This pretty much means join time and how long you do it wins. Seems extremely simple; I'm not sure how you would want to keep going when those are your only rules.

FE7 I'll give you, but FE6? No way. Even Alan and Lance have trouble ORKOing enemies in mid to late game.

[Tangerine]

FE7 I'll give you, but FE6? No way. Even Alan and Lance have trouble ORKOing enemies in mid to late game.

If you're not taking funds and EXP into account, everyone can and should promote early. This makes the game a breeze for the most part.

[Vykan12]

Easy games can be tiered just fine. It just means that things secondary to stats (class traits, supports, availability) will have more impact on a unit's ranking.

[Narga_Rocks]

Well, in his defense he did point out "as fast as possible", so that at least should imply that we aren't caring about hitting 610 turns but blowing that number out of the ballpark. But I get it that the other posts probably weren't there while you were typing, and there posts were more explicit than his. Happens to me all the time (the part about other posts showing up while I type). I try to hit preview post and look at what shows up while I was typing, but I don't always remember.

"As fast as possible" to me means "as fast as the ranks will allow you to go".

That's great for you, trouble is it means you aren't reading his post carefully.

Of course there's a point, which characters will help you clear the game as fast as possible without stupid ranks like EXP/Funds slowing you down? There's very big differentials here, I believe Percival tops the ranked list?

I have to ask which ranks are getting in the way of going as fast as possible since he clearly stated they aren't being considered. So, as fast as possible means precisely what it says: Do whatever you can with whomever you can to (safely) make the game your footstool.

I should think that would be pretty obvious, and it clearly implies that the 610 means nothing. 500 is superior to 610, and a unit that causes 500 rather than a unit that can't do better than 610 would clearly be better. Ditto 400 versus 500.

If there is a way to get Roy to seize that throne even 1 turn faster, that is a win for whatever character allows us to pull it off. aka: as fast as possible, period.

I think we are very anti-ranks. That probably has something to do with it. Having to not spend money we have just to make I.S. happy makes people go crazy.

Well, that's pretty hypocritical of the people acting hostile then.

Why is it hypocritical? We hate ranks and think they are stupid. Somebody says ranks is the only way to tier and that everything else is a joke. We're gonna get hostile. It's not hypocritical. Hypocritical would probably be us hating ranks and then ragging on someone else that thinks ranks are stupid.

If you want to contribute to the non-rank lists, just keep in mind that the idea is to stomp the game. That's the way I look at it, anyway. Efficient stomping. Meaning no boss abuse, of course, because while that could lead to stomping, it isn't really efficient. The most stomp in the least turns. It's why Titania in fe9 is better than most of the others. Well, part of why.

Sounds like join time means even more on this list than the ranking list.

It's important: if you are around longer and don't suck your footprint on turncounts will of course be bigger. That's not really a bad thing. If we are looking at which characters help efficient completion the most, stuff happens. If someone loves Lehran or Athos, too bad.

Yeah, most of our comments about Gamefaqs are like our comments about Smash. They just come up from time to time because we like taking shots at easy targets. I think it is very human.

And yeah, I'd say a large portion of the active posters on the RD board of gamefaqs wouldn't know what makes a character great if it... made itself really obvious.

In their defense, many of them don't care. But there are those that say a character is "good" when it clearly isn't, or that you can do [insert nutso idea here] and a character is then good.

Well, I'm not from the RD board. RD brought in a bunch of casual FE fans who really shouldn't be arguing tiers in the first place. The FE7 tier community is of much higher quality. I'd like to think Jaffar and I proved that ourselves. Now if only Reikken were here to complete our GFaqs trio :(.

Oh, it is true that some members of Gamefaqs are okay. Heck, Red Fox of Fire did say 85%, not 100%, so even she is admitting some people are okay there. (I wonder if she is counting herself and me in that 15%, though.)

Well, like I said, calling something we love a joke is probably the quickest way to rile us.

The efficiency tier list is basically a narrowed down S-rank tier list anyway, so it's tough not to see where it's coming from. I just don't particularly see the reason you'd want to debate much about it. It's fairly obvious who the best characters are when you don't take ranks into account because nobody is restricted. The S-rank tier list wants to be as efficient as possible as well while under restrictions the ranks offer.

I don't see how it has anything to do with the ranks. Having perfectly usable money sitting prettily in your convoy is not something we tend to abide. And it isn't always obvious who the best characters are. If it were, people wouldn't move so often. You could go through any of the different tier lists to see that. You don't get to 1000+ posts if it's obvious.

Anyway, for tier lists without ranks, the idea is:

Some ranks impose restrictions that prevent the efficient stomping of a game. Why force us to give exp to a bunch of lame characters when the ones we have raised can cut through a chapter like it's butter? Once you accept our premise, the rest logically follows, and the best characters become those that exemplify excellence. If a unit is so amazing that it will crush the enemies around it and allow us to finish in 8 turns instead of 11, that's great. If tactics rank suggests 14 turns is okay, that doesn't matter. 8 is better than 14. The characters that allow 14 are not equal to those that allow 8. So, if those 14 can do something that helps those other ranks, we don't care. They aren't helping us destroy the game.

But at some point that line is crossed by everybody. Enemies in FE6/7 are pretty trash to the point where most characters outside of the worst one round everything. This pretty much means join time and how long you do it wins. Seems extremely simple; I'm not sure how you would want to keep going when those are your only rules.

Never played either of those two games. Based on these lists and when units are first available, though, I'd have to disagree with you.

And what is better? Arguing under a bunch of rules to which we whole heartily give our stamps of approval, or arguing under a bunch of ranks we think are retarded? Can't see how we'd have any fun under restrictive rules dictated by I.S. I'm not going to bother explaining how it isn't simple. There are thousands of posts on the subject in various topics on these boards. If it were as simple as you suggest, we'd have to be braindead to not have it all figured out by now.

[dondon151]

What are you, five?

How dense can you possibly be? Or rather, blind, because I don't understand how one doesn't comprehend a very simple point when it's been brought up (and bolded) myriad times.

If you're not taking funds and EXP into account, everyone can and should promote early. This makes the game a breeze for the most part.

Units promoting early tends to make them unable to double later in the game. You need 16 AS in chapter 16 to double mages and 20 AS to double mercs, and then Sacae requires 22-23 AS to double nomads, so no one will reach that threshold with early promotion.

By the way how exactly does this invalidate the premise of tiering with respect to efficiency when tiering with respect to ranks is even more of a joke? Saying that there's nothing to be gained from completing a game faster is like insinuating that foot races are pointless. I think that in the 2012 Olympics, the 100m dash gold medal should go to the person who can finish in under 10.5 seconds while spending the least amount of money possible on performance enhancing drugs and while being to 2RKO his competitors with spinning jump kicks. Fuck Usain Bolt and his world record, because it's totally pointless!

Edited November 20, 2009 by dondon151

[BigMeatyClawz]

I never got the point of tiering based on ranks. Funds rank especially screw you over by basically only promoting five(?) people, hoarding useful items cause they cost a lot, and playing half the game with iron weapons. Ridiculous restrictions are ridiculous. And Exp rank is even worse. My attempt to stay on topic

I think that in the 2012 Olympics, the 100m dash gold medal should go to the person who can finish in under 10.5 seconds while spending the least amount of money possible on performance enhancing drugs and while being to 2RKO his competitors with spinning jump kicks. Fuck Usain Bolt and his world record, because it's totally pointless!

Sig'd

Edited November 20, 2009 by oval

[Vykan12]

Dondon has won the topic.

[Tangerine]

I'll ignore dondon. I talk to plenty of children on GameFAQs and I'd rather not be forced to repeat myself to those too ignorant to even try to see where someone else is coming from.

I have to ask which ranks are getting in the way of going as fast as possible since he clearly stated they aren't being considered. So, as fast as possible means precisely what it says: Do whatever you can with whomever you can to (safely) make the game your footstool.

I should think that would be pretty obvious, and it clearly implies that the 610 means nothing. 500 is superior to 610, and a unit that causes 500 rather than a unit that can't do better than 610 would clearly be better. Ditto 400 versus 500.

If there is a way to get Roy to seize that throne even 1 turn faster, that is a win for whatever character allows us to pull it off. aka: as fast as possible, period.

He singled out EXP/Funds, which stood out to me more. Tactics doesn't really slow you down outside of FE6 and he knows that, considering he only debated ranked before he came here. The fact that people told me Tactics/Combat was taken into account on the FE7 tier list made me think you also took them into account on this one. Not exactly a stretch of the imagination.

Why is it hypocritical? We hate ranks and think they are stupid. Somebody says ranks is the only way to tier and that everything else is a joke. We're gonna get hostile. It's not hypocritical. Hypocritical would probably be us hating ranks and then ragging on someone else that thinks ranks are stupid.

Because they are essentially getting angry at me for doing the same thing they are? I didn't say it was the only way to tier, I said it seems kind of pointless to do it any other way.

I don't see how it has anything to do with the ranks. Having perfectly usable money sitting prettily in your convoy is not something we tend to abide. And it isn't always obvious who the best characters are. If it were, people wouldn't move so often. You could go through any of the different tier lists to see that. You don't get to 1000+ posts if it's obvious.

"Narrowed down". You're taking the ranks away and trying to beat it as efficiently as possible, we try to do that with the restrictions the ranks offer. Therefor, the efficiency tier list is a simplified S rank tier list. Much easier to understand where you come from when you think of it that way after only debating ranked for a few years.

Never played either of those two games. Based on these lists and when units are first available, though, I'd have to disagree with you.

Fox didn't seem to disagree with me when it came to FE7, neither did dondon. I'll get to that in a second though.

And what is better? Arguing under a bunch of rules to which we whole heartily give our stamps of approval, or arguing under a bunch of ranks we think are retarded? Can't see how we'd have any fun under restrictive rules dictated by I.S.

Neither way is inherently better, everyone prefers to do things differently. I hate playing ranked runs because they're time consuming, but I still believe that ranked tier lists generate the most interest and represent a character's worth on an overall scale better. The FE7 tier lists alone have generated over 500 topics and 300,000 posts since we started. Of course, we started long before Serenes was made, so the head start helps.

Units promoting early tends to make them unable to double later in the game. You need 16 AS in chapter 16 to double mages and 20 AS to double mercs, and then Sacae requires 22-23 AS to double nomads, so no one will reach that threshold with early promotion.

Actually, I'll respond to this from dondon since it's not as juvenile as the rest of his post.

Very few units will ever realistically double the enemies you just listed (outside of the mages). Alan doesn't double those mercs until 20/8 and doesn't double the nomads until 20/15. Why even raise him with those in mind?

I never got the point of tiering based on ranks. Funds rank especially screw you over by basically only promoting five(?) people, hoarding useful items cause they cost a lot, and playing half the game with iron weapons. Ridiculous restrictions are ridiculous.

Uh, no? You can promote an entire team in FE7 and give them Killer/Silver weapons and still A rank funds thanks to Matthew and the nice amount of money/expensive items they give you for free. Funds is a joke in FE6, you need like 100k funds to A rank.

EXP is annoying in FE7, but you can just arena abuse for it in FE6.

[dondon151]

I'll ignore dondon. I talk to plenty of children on GameFAQs and I'd rather not be forced to repeat myself to those too ignorant to even try to see where someone else is coming from.

The true children are the ones who ignore the points fatal to their argument. And enough people here have been forced to repeat themselves to you, who refuses to understand (or possibly even comprehend) where we're coming from.

So here is a double-edged example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Edited November 20, 2009 by dondon151

[Tangerine]

The true children are the ones who ignore the points fatal to their argument. And enough people here have been forced to repeat themselves to you, who refuses to understand (or possibly even comprehend) where we're coming from.

So here is a double-edged example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Except I already know where you're coming from, that's not even part of the discussion anymore. The only thing that was was the Tactics/Combat confusion and overall worth. It's fairly clear you haven't even been reading everything to begin with; what I ignored in your post was completely irrelevant. I ignored the first grade insults and this

By the way how exactly does this invalidate the premise of tiering with respect to efficiency when tiering with respect to ranks is even more of a joke?

Which had nothing to do with what you were replying to. I wasn't even trying to invalidate the efficiency tier list.

The "true children" are the juvenile, intellectually challenged (by extension) individuals who feel as though they need to belittle someone in order to feel confident in themselves. Seriously, I'm genuinely worried about you. If you had a stroke, I would feel terrible.

As much as I enjoy laughing at your ridiculous responses though, I'm going out for a while. I'll respond to whatever anyone has to say tomorrow. The relevant things, anyway. Maybe the irrelevant things if I think they're funny enough.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Moribalken

[BEST TRYNDAMERE PLAYER]

...There are people who play the game without arena/support abusing. I'm one of those people.

Anyways, I think you all need to calm down or some shit. Seriously.

[Colonel M]

I think that in the 2012 Olympics, the 100m dash gold medal should go to the person who can finish in under 10.5 seconds while spending the least amount of money possible on performance enhancing drugs and while being to 2RKO his competitors with spinning jump kicks. Fuck Usain Bolt and his world record, because it's totally pointless!

I can't stop laughing...

[00:21] Chainey: "With Zagaro, you can run like KENYANS!"

[00:21] Colonel_M: lol

[00:21] Colonel_M: But Zagaro will be departed back to KENYA

Edited November 20, 2009 by Colonel M

[Rodykitty]

Skimming through this thread because Colonel M told me about this epic post dondon made, and found stuff I feel like responding to.

Jeez, why are you people so hostile?

Because:

there's really no point.

What are you, five?

For the record, I do think the tier lists for any of the FE games without ranks is a joke.

A tier list without ranks is a joke to me

You yourself are hostile towards the idea of tiering characters based on the idea of how good they actually are. Of course people are going to respond with hostility if you are hostile to their way of tiering characters, as well as calling one of them five.

That, and you fail to realize that going for maximum efficiency can be a challenge in itself (and I believe most, if not all FE games give you turn counts of chapters), so there's no reason to dismiss the idea of an efficiency tier list on the basis of doing challenges since efficiency and low turns is a challenge in itself.

I'll ignore dondon. I talk to plenty of children on GameFAQs and I'd rather not be forced to repeat myself to those too ignorant to even try to see where someone else is coming from.

You've just given pretty much everyone permission to be hostile to you by saying this.

Neither way is inherently better, everyone prefers to do things differently. I hate playing ranked runs because they're time consuming, but I still believe that ranked tier lists generate the most interest and represent a character's worth on an overall scale better.

Dart is an excellent character utility and stat-wise, but he's auto-fail in a ranked tier list for requiring a Seal that we get for free. This is not overall worth of a character.

And even if you think, "Well, money is very useful for buying things!" It suddenly becomes less of a deal when you are already financially set. This is absolutely stupid, and a very good reason for ditching rankings. This is not overall representation of a character's traits. Stop doing this. Tell GameFAQs to stop doing this.

EXP rank is pretty silly for tiering as well, because it forces you to do potentially turn-count harming tasks in order to accomplish it.

There's also the fact that only a couple of FE games even have rankings (FE5 doesn't count), so you NEED to have efficiency criteria for most of them.

Edited November 20, 2009 by FE3 Player

[dondon151]

As much as I enjoy laughing at your ridiculous responses though, I'm going out for a while. I'll respond to whatever anyone has to say tomorrow. The relevant things, anyway. Maybe the irrelevant things if I think they're funny enough.

:life card:

[Florete]

The fact that people told me Tactics/Combat was taken into account on the FE7 tier list made me think you also took them into account on this one. Not exactly a stretch of the imagination.

What? Please point me to whoever said that so I can yell at them. Unless you read it wrong and whoever said that was only actually using those as an example, because everyone knows "efficiency" means "fuck the ranks."

Fox didn't seem to disagree with me when it came to FE7, neither did dondon. I'll get to that in a second though.

I don't remember the argument in question, but FE7 is a different game.

I still believe that ranked tier lists generate the most interest and represent a character's worth on an overall scale better.

Bullshit. FE3 Player already gave the Dart example, which is an example of how retarded Funds is. Then there's Experience, which gives units who should be worthless like Nino a significant advantage over others only because they have high experience gain, which is absolutely ridiculous. Units should never be rewarded for having high experience gain. This is not overall worth of a character.

Combat and Survival are pretty much joke ranks as it is, Combat more so because Survival means you aren't allowed to use sacrifices. Sure, it could be argued that you shouldn't do that anyway because it might require more strategy to keep everyone alive, but imagine if Survival existed in FE10. Now we have to keep Tormod, Vika, and Muarim alive in 4-4 instead of feeding them to the Sleep Staff, which is actually the best utility they can provide at that point. Survival might be easy to keep, but it's still annoying to have since it limits what I'm allowed to do.

The FE7 tier lists alone have generated over 500 topics and 300,000 posts since we started. Of course, we started long before Serenes was made, so the head start helps.

You're not talking GameFAQs alone, are you? And how are you so sure of these numbers? 300,000 is quite a damn lot.

Even if it is accurate, it doesn't matter, because people and ideas change over time. You said yourself you don't even like playing ranked, why the hell would you think that's better for discussion?

Very few units will ever realistically double the enemies you just listed (outside of the mages). Alan doesn't double those mercs until 20/8 and doesn't double the nomads until 20/15. Why even raise him with those in mind?

Because Alan is the only one who will fight these guys? The point is, early promotion does not make the game a cakewalk like you suggested. That's a load of horse shit. The second best unit in the game failing to double unless he's at a high level should be obvious proof of that.

EDIT: It's also retarded as hell how you seem to think there's a point in tiering with ranks but no point without. In the end, neither one has any point except to entertain those discussing and doing the tiering. Tier lists are not character guides, they don't cure cancer, and they don't get America out of its financial crisis. They are, in the end, arbitrary and pointless tools of entertainment, much like the games they are based on.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Red Fox of Fire

[Rodykitty]

Tier lists are not character guides, they don't cure cancer, and they don't get America out of its financial crisis.

Maybe if America actually used their Ocean Seals in an effort to stop Piracy and promote aggressive violence instead of needlessly holding on to them and inflating the US dollar, the economy wouldn't be so bad. Some of the money that is normally spent on creating brand variations on over the counter Vulneraries, that at best heal bruises, could be put into researching new ways of using Restore Staves to cure cancer. Edited November 20, 2009 by FE3 Player

[CATS]

lol

Meanwhile......why is Clarine two tiers above Ellen and Saul? She's almost exactly the same as those two for half the game.

[dondon151]

Ellen makes sense because her durability and offense are much worse than Clarine's (plus inferior mobility). Saul is perpetually in danger of getting blicked. Maybe Saul can move up, but I think Ellen is fine being 2 tiers under Clarine.

[Colonel M]

The mount and possibility of supports are major differences between Ellen, Saul, and Clarine. I dunno though about dondon's proposition because Ellen still exists for a time before Clarine and Saul, though Clarine's mount keeps up with the team later. Guess it's how you interpret Clarine's advantages and how high you think it allows her to be.

Maybe if America actually used their Ocean Seals in an effort to stop Piracy and promote aggressive violence instead of needlessly holding on to them and inflating the US dollar, the economy wouldn't be so bad. Some of the money that is normally spent on creating brand variations on over the counter Vulneraries, that at best heal bruises, could be put into researching new ways of using Restore Staves to cure cancer.

Fuck, when will I be able to make an awesome post like this and dondon's? >_>;

Edited November 20, 2009 by Colonel M

[Tangerine]

You yourself are hostile towards the idea of tiering characters based on the idea of how good they actually are. Of course people are going to respond with hostility if you are hostile to their way of tiering characters, as well as calling one of them five.

I'm not hostile towards the idea, I just didn't really see the point. If I were hostile towards it, why would I even be interested in contributing? You're exaggerating everything I say. Or you're just looking for an argument and are blowing things out of proportion so you'll get one.

That, and you fail to realize that going for maximum efficiency can be a challenge in itself (and I believe most, if not all FE games give you turn counts of chapters), so there's no reason to dismiss the idea of an efficiency tier list on the basis of doing challenges since efficiency and low turns is a challenge in itself

Don't see how this matters.

You've just given pretty much everyone permission to be hostile to you by saying this.

Nobody needs my permission. If they're going to be juvenile, I'm going to point it out.

Dart is an excellent character utility and stat-wise, but he's auto-fail in a ranked tier list for requiring a Seal that we get for free. This is not overall worth of a character.

Dart is not auto-fail on a ranked tier list. If you had actually seen our updated one (or knew how to rank yourself), you'd see he moved up quite a bit after we finished analyzing how much actual money we're allowed to spend on a ranked run. Farina didn't get as big of a boost though, sadly, since you have to pay just to use her and don't get a choice.

EXP rank is pretty silly for tiering as well, because it forces you to do potentially turn-count harming tasks in order to accomplish it.

It isn't silly. Forcing you to make use of units you wouldn't normally use is a great idea.

:life card:

What?

Bullshit. FE3 Player already gave the Dart example, which is an example of how retarded Funds is. Then there's Experience, which gives units who should be worthless like Nino a significant advantage over others only because they have high experience gain, which is absolutely ridiculous. Units should never be rewarded for having high experience gain. This is not overall worth of a character.

Nino moves from bottom to above garbage like Wallace. Not really a significant boost.

You're not talking GameFAQs alone, are you? And how are you so sure of these numbers? 300,000 is quite a damn lot.

Because I've been there since the start and we used to number them. We stopped numbering them a while ago, but I keep the better debates saved in a notepad and numbered by what topic they're in, so I end up keeping track of the topics unintentionally. We only get 500-700 posts a month now, but we used to go through topics in a couple of days.

Because Alan is the only one who will fight these guys? The point is, early promotion does not make the game a cakewalk like you suggested. That's a load of horse shit. The second best unit in the game failing to double unless he's at a high level should be obvious proof of that.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? I picked a random higher tier unit as an example and you're going to jump on me because I didn't list every unit in the game? Most units should never be raised with doubling those enemies in mind, because most units will never double them until end game. I'd rather be better for the harder parts of the game and worse for endgame than worse in the harder parts and great in endgame.

*yawn*

[Rodykitty]

I'm not hostile towards the idea, I just didn't really see the point. If I were hostile towards it, why would I even be interested in contributing? You're exaggerating everything I say. Or you're just looking for an argument and are blowing things out of proportion so you'll get one.

If you weren't hostile towards the idea, this argument would have never happened. If you honestly believe that people are entitled to their methods of doing tier lists, THEN ENTITLE THEM TO IT.

[Colonel M]

If you weren't hostile towards the idea, this argument would have never happened. If you honestly believe that people are entitled to their methods of doing tier lists, THEN SIG THIS PLEASE!.

Secretly this is what Chainey meant, hehehehe...

Though can we go back to CATS' post?

[dondon151]

Well, Ellen pretty much can't double anything other than armors or weighed down fighters/archers. Saul and Clarine can double pretty much everything. This alone should constitute a tier gap (or something close to it) between them. Clarine is mounted and has superior durability to Saul due to +25 avo from supports likely to be in play compounded with superior AS and far superior luk, plus she doesn't run the risk of always being instablicked, so that can probably constitute something close to a tier gap as well.